nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum talk:Second Chamber
After visiting http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_park&diff=prev&oldid=183476403, I would propose the following adaption to the second sentence (1.1). (If that is OK with you) National parks are natural or geological areas, usually, but not always declared and owned by the federal government, protected from most human development and pollution. National parks are a protected area of UWN. A National Park can simply be designated after a request from the Service and after the owner's acceptance.Lars 08:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC) '' 't Stond er ook nog eens naast.... :( --Oos Wes Ilava Thoes Bès 12:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC) :Indeed. Furtheron, have you read the comments on the UWN forum at UWN wikia? They say they want to STOP UWN. 12:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC) ::That was were I'm affraid for. No UWN will make every wikination just a drifting raft. Without UWN all wikinations will become led by a dictator. --Oos Wes Ilava Thoes Bès 12:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC) :::I don't think so, UWN doesn't do anything at all now... 12:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC) ::::Well, maybe it should do more :) It didn't react when Vreêland and Ilenulando died. --Oos Wes Ilava Thoes Bès 12:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC) ::::If you ask me, creating an organisation like UWN and waiting till everybody comes in to join is the best way to advertise. No problem with me, but there needs to be an active government to whom we can address ourselves. In my humble opinion there is none. We might change it the way round: Lovia becomes the headquarter of all wikia's ! How about that one ! 12:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC) :::::Bad idea :) It will cause a war :D --Oos Wes Ilava Thoes Bès 12:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC) :What happens to the votes of those who are not with us anymore ? I mean on the last proposal which has to be accepted/refused as yet ? 13:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC) ::Dimitri will probably "accept" it officially soon. I guess that OWTB's vote still counts because he voted before he lost his citizen rights. 13:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC) :::Okay 14:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Area The best area for voting! Pierlot McCrooke 08:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC) What do you mean ? ¿Lars Washington? 09:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC) 2nd chamber Is this correct English or Lovian English? Dutch: 2e kamer... --OWTB 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC) :It seem to be. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambers_of_parliament. George Matthews 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Army Why not make a state army? (Like Mäöres) --OWTB 14:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC) :What do you mean with state army? Do you mean per state (subdivision)? 15:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC) ::Small professional armies that are (mainly) used for assisting in humanitairy missions and to help if there are natural dissasters in Lovia I may hope? 14:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC) :::@Dimitri, oui. @Yuri, oui aussi. Then is the army better spreaded all over the country and can decisions be made more easy, of course does there need to be a 'controlerend orgaan' too. --OWTB 14:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC) ::::Sounds unnecessary to me. We will have one army in Lovia, which seems quite enough to defend 20,000 persons. In case of humanitarian things: both the army and the local/federal police can help. I don't think we'll need "state armies". 14:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC) ::::::'( --OWTB 14:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC) ::::::I'm sorry, but I think there are quite some arguments against that idea. In the first place: we are a federal state, with a central government and a subdivision that has quite some power, but not as much as Swiss, German or American cantons/states. But, in all of these nations there is always one thing in common: their foreign policy, including defense!, is federal and never by state/province... And then: I don't think it's necessary. It has even seemed that so much polices aren't needed; and one large police should be enough. Let's not make the same "mistake" again. 14:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC) ::::::::'( --OWTB 14:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC) No army then? To bad, could have been great news? 14:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC) :Yuri, have you well read the last proposal in the 2nd Chamber? It is about the creation of an army, a national one. 14:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC) :: Why not decollectivisate the army? :D --OWTB 14:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Something wrong here with the text on the Forum ? (The Fourth Amendement) 5. The national sovereignty shall reside within the Lovia people, that shall exercise it by means of their representative bodies, resulting from free, periodical and fair elections, as well as by referendum. needs to be changed into: 5. The national sovereignty shall reside within the Lovian people, that shall exercise it by means of # Their representative bodies as the result of free, periodical and fair elections. # A referendum in which every citizen can vote freely, if approved by a normal majority in Congress (+50%). Lars Washington 15:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC) :I'll fix it. Sorry 15:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Problem with articles 13c-13d The town and city acts are very vague, particularly pertaining to size. All they tell you about size is that, for a city, "The size is smaller than the normal area of a town" and for town, "The size is smaller than the normal area of a city," this tells us nothing except that cities are bigger than towns, which we know already. It needs major clarifying. Otherwise, I like it (the constitution) a lot. Sithman8 21:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC) :Well, I thought that a city has 5 neighborhoods or more... At least, that's what I think it's all about... --OuWTB 11:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I haven't thought about it that way. We could say that a town could have up to 4 neighbourhoods and a city more than 4 neighbourhoods, but then it could become a little bit complicated (if we distinguish towns and cities by population in the meantime). We could also leave that part out, and only look at the population figures. What is your opinion about it? --Bucureştean 14:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) :I'd say that a city is 5 or more neighborhoods and 4,000 or more inhabitants. If not achieving these criteria, it's a town or villaazje. --OuWTB 15:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) :: :S... Well, lets say that we dont listen to you! :P ;). --Bucureştean 16:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) :::I must cry for this :'( --OuWTB 16:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) ::::It's okay :p Bucureştean 17:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) :::::Brave jonge :) --OuWTB 13:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Vote Could i vote? McCrooke 13:05, November 21, 2009 (UTC) :All articles in the 2nd Chamber are already accepted. 13:08, November 21, 2009 (UTC) ::But could i vote if there is a new proposal? McCrooke 13:10, November 21, 2009 (UTC) :::Not until you are released. 13:16, November 21, 2009 (UTC) ::::But i have a temporary account. An di even suscribed to the Temporary Congres with this account! McCrooke 13:18, November 21, 2009 (UTC) :::::Hmm. I'll consider it. 13:22, November 21, 2009 (UTC) And? McCrooke 14:28, November 21, 2009 (UTC) et? McCrooke 18:20, November 26, 2009 (UTC) :I guess you can. If I have to warn you ONCE this week, or block you, I'll remove your vote again. Deal? 18:23, November 26, 2009 (UTC) Whoops Just realised I can't vote.Ligency 12:41, March 23, 2010 (UTC) :No big deal 15:53, March 23, 2010 (UTC) Translation Ik stel voor het verzenden van advertenties aan: - Forum 20 50.000 dollar Forum - Registratie in het wit catalogi sites 10 dollar voor 6000 catalogi - op de borden en advertenties op het internet 10 20.000 dollar platen - handleiding van reclame verzending in een aanvraag voor registratie van 0,2 dollar minimale bestelling van 50 registraties, verzameling sites inbegrepen. - Verzamelen van databases van sites - het maken van sites. :Or in English: I suggest sending ads to: - Forums 20 $ 50000 Forum - Registration in white catalogs sites $ 10 for 6000 catalogs - on the boards and classified ads on the Internet 10 $ 20000 boards - manual dispatch of advertising in any application for registration of $ 0.2 minimum order of 50 registrations, collection sites included. - Collecting databases of any sites - making sites Does anybody know what this significates :p Jon Johnson 10:22, April 22, 2010 (UTC) :Where did you find this, Mister Johnson? -- 10:42, April 22, 2010 (UTC) ::Well this was the text which I found on this Forum earlier today, I can see Yuri Medvedev has solved the problem by now, I only wanted to make a statement to the person who placed here, it's total nonsense! Jon Johnson 22:10, April 22, 2010 (UTC) :::The entire forum was erased and this was placed on it instead by some IP adress. I have no idea what it is all about and just reverted the edit. I do recall something alike happening a few months back but I can't remember on which page. Otherwise we could have compared the culprits... 12:30, April 23, 2010 (UTC) ::::Silly spammers . Thanks for reverting, Medve. 11:23, April 24, 2010 (UTC) Question Shouldn't a normal majority be more than 50%? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:32, November 11, 2010 (UTC) :Normally, yes. But I know the law isn't always very clear on that one. Why? 13:51, November 11, 2010 (UTC) ::Do we have an even number of MOTCs? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:53, November 11, 2010 (UTC) :::We do. 13:55, November 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::What if f.e. 5 MOTCs are pro and 5 are contra? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:58, November 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::Then the bill doesn't pass. We never had that problem, as you might know :). :::::This is what the CONST says: "A normal majority is required to pass a motion. A normal majority is described as more than fifty percent of the valid votes." :::::So no problem 14:02, November 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Okay, good :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:05, November 11, 2010 (UTC) Strange proposal If I (i.e. my brother) weren't killed, I'd definitely vote contra. I do not understand why we need more bureaucracy shizzle. Cristian Latin 17:39, December 29, 2010 (UTC) :I agree. We need less bureaucracy shizzle. Edward Hannis 17:58, December 29, 2010 (UTC) :: OWTB: "if it turns out not to be working, we could still abolish it". Yeah... we could do quite a lot of stuff then We could make Pierlot dictator of Lovia, but if it doesn't seem to be working, we'll have the possibility to remove him. :)) Cristian Latin 11:12, January 2, 2011 (UTC) :::It might just be me but isn't there a slight gradual difference in creating a potentially useless instrument and installing a dictatorship? 11:15, January 2, 2011 (UTC) Indeed, this bureaucratic shit won't have a negative impact, so we could try. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:22, January 2, 2011 (UTC) :I think it does :P Cristian Latin 11:27, January 2, 2011 (UTC) ::How does it? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:32, January 2, 2011 (UTC) :::First of all, the national departments did not work out at all. Why would this remain active after 2 months? Second, more bureaucracy. Why do we have to make things complicated? Third, it will slow down the Congress with its unneeded suspension experiments. We don't have many laws concerning Lovia's economy (almost none?). The best would be to adopt them sooner or later, without creating bureaucratic obstacles like this. Cristian Latin 11:41, January 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::Eh.. I'll abstain in this one :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:43, January 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::: :P Cristian Latin 11:44, January 2, 2011 (UTC) :::::: Cristian Latin 11:49, January 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::::: --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:50, January 2, 2011 (UTC) :::::::: Cristian Latin 11:51, January 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::: --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:52, January 2, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::: Cristian Latin 11:56, January 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::: --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:09, January 2, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::::: Cristian Latin 12:24, January 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::::: --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:27, January 2, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::::::: Cristian Latin 12:28, January 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::::::: --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:30, January 2, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::::::::: Cristian Latin 12:32, January 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::: --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:35, January 2, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::: Cristian Latin 12:37, January 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::: --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:38, January 2, 2011 (UTC) :A ghost argument? This is getting silly guys. 11:57, January 2, 2011 (UTC) ::Wiens argument is heel geestig Cristian Latin 12:01, January 2, 2011 (UTC)